[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [SANET-MG] no smoking cow? reply



Hi Charles,
Let me explain my thinking on this matter. The British study showing that pasture grass was contaminated with E coli 0157 but as the publication below from Alberta shows confined calves and heifers infected with E coli 0157 were driven to pasture and thereafter ceased to bear the pathogenic bacteria. Presumably because the grass diet resulted in the animal having reduced acidity. The point I would like to make is that the animal was no longer a source of E coli 0157 but the pasture presumably was! Take that to the forensic investigation of the Salinas pollution. If the cattle were fed hay or grass for a week or two before they were tested for E coli 0157 they would be deemed not to be a pollution source while the pasture would likely be ignored.The forensic investigation should have tested the pasture as well as the cows, Pastures can be contaminated with E coli 0157 even though the cattle that feed on the pastures may be pathogen free. The British study did not implicate the cattle, it implicated their pastures.
Epidemiology and Infection (2002), 129: 163-172 Cambridge University Press

Escherichia coli O157[ratio]H7 infection in cows and calves in a beef cattle herd in Alberta, Canada V. P. J. GANNON a1 c1, T. A. GRAHAM a1, R. KING a2, P. MICHEL a3, S. READ a3, K. ZIEBELL a3 and R. P. JOHNSON a3 a1 Health Canada, Animal Diseases Research Institute, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 3Z4 a2 The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Animal Diseases Research Institute, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 3Z4 a3 Health Canada, Laboratory Centre for Enteric and Zoonotic Diseases, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 3W4

Abstract

Escherichia coli O157[ratio]H7 infection of cows and calves in a naturally-infected beef cattle herd in Alberta, Canada, was investigated over 2 years, encompassing two calf production cycles. In both years of the study, E. coli O157[ratio]H7 was isolated from the faeces of cows shortly after but not before parturition in late winter: 6/38 (16%) in 1996 and 13/50 (26%) in 1997. At <1 week post-partum, 13/52 (25%) calves born in 1997 were shedding the organism. Faecal shedding of E. coli O157[ratio]H7 by cows and calves continued over the 7 weeks that they were in the calving pens, with the organism being isolated from the faeces of 2–18% of cows and 23–26% of calves during this period. Five weeks after they were moved onto a native grass pasture, all the calves and all but one cow in 1997 had ceased shedding the organism. When the calves were weaned in the fall, E. coli O157[ratio]H7 was isolated from the faeces of 0–1.5% of the calves 1 week prior to weaning and from 6–14% of the calves within 2 weeks after weaning. Parturition, calving pens and weaning appear to be important factors in maintaining E. coli O157[ratio]H7 infections in this beef cattle herd. Isolates from cows and calves during the immediate post-partum period were mostly of the same pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) type of E. coli O157[ratio]H7. Similarly, at weaning a common PFGE type of E. coli O157[ratio]H7, which differed slightly from the post-partum PFGE type, was isolated from the calves. These typing data suggest a common source of infection for the animals as well as demonstrate clonal turnover of resident populations of this pathogen. My comment, if you farm for fruits or vegetables next door to to cattle it is important to check the runoff from the pasture as well as the cattle!
Hope this makes sense to you. sincerely, joe cummins

Charles F. Sydnor wrote:
Dear Joe,
Do you know of a documented case of E. Coli O157:H7 in cattle that have never been fed grain i.e. purely grass fed? It is well known that feedlot cattle placed on pasture for the last 7-10 days of life will dramatically reduce their incidence of E. Coli O157:H7. Thank you for your many contributions........Charles

Braeburn Farm
Charles & Cindy Sydnor
6707 Bass Mountain Rd.
Snow Camp, NC 27349
e-mail sydnor@netpath.net
web www.braeburnfarms.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "jcummins" <jcummins@UWO.CA>
To: <SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] no smoking cow? reply


Hi Jeff,
You ask a question that the world cries out for an answer to. It seems clear that traditional organic practices cannot provide iron clad assurances that E coli 0157 is not present in fruit, vegetables or meat, while tradition agriculture cannot provide any kind of assurance at all. As long as USDA and other government agencies ignore or diminish the problem, there will be little real focus to research and regulation. The best hope an organic farmer has to avoid being scape goated is to ensure that the products the farmers sell are tested in the field and any neighboring cattle farmers share the burden of the tests.sincerely, joe cummins
Jeff Schahczenski wrote:
To all,

So if E coli 0157 is rather pervasive in the environment, what agricultural practices might remove it from the environment or at least keep it from becoming more pervasive?.... or is just a matter of more testing and care to prevent it from getting in food system?


jcummins wrote:
Hi Brian,
The paper below from UK shows that E coli 0157 (shiga toxin or stx for the Ecoli and its bacteria phage or bacterial virus) is found on pasture grasses but less on silage and processed foods.I have also found a lot of reports on spread of E coli 0157 by birds, flies and slugs. I have not put down those abstracts for sake of space but it seems flies may be a major source for spreading the toxic bacteria. It seems almost as if nature had generally begun to rebel against the human predator and joined forces to deal with the threat. Organic agriculture like conventional agriculture is a victim not a cause.It seems clear that USDA and other research establishments have been slow to recognize the growing threat to humans and must be prodded into action.
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2006 Aug;43(2):205-10.
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, faecal coliforms and coliphage in animal feeds.Hutchison ML, Thomas DJ, Walters LD, Avery SM. Research Division, DLS-Eurofins, Wolverhampton, UK. mike.hutchison@directlaboratories.net

AIMS: Animal feeds (n = 226), collected from pastures or feeding troughs on UK farms and from feed manufacturers' bulk stores, were analysed for Escherichia coli harbouring shiga-toxin genes (stx), faecal coliforms, coliphages and stx-harbouring bacteriophages. METHODS AND RESULTS: Samples comprised of 79 fresh grasses, 26 silages and 121 dried or heat-processed feeds (DPF). Five of the 79 (6.3%) fresh grass samples contained stx(2)-E. coli. stx-E. coli were not detected in the silages or DPF that were examined. Faecal coliforms were detected in 75/79 (94.9%) of fresh grasses, 19/26 (73.1%) of silages and 36/121 (29.8%) of processed feeds. Coliphages were detected in 63/79 (79.7%) and 18/26 (69.2%) of fresh grasses and silages, respectively. Coliphages were isolated at a significantly lower prevalence of 5% (6/121) from processed feeds. Although stx(2)-phage was isolated from the enrichment of a single grass sample, stx-phages were not detected in any of the silage or processed feeds. We did not detect stx(1)-phage in any of the samples collected. CONCLUSIONS: Pastures have the potential to act as transmission vectors for stx-harbouring E. coli for grazed livestock. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This is the first study to report on the prevalence of E. coli harbouring stx genes, faecal coliforms, coliphages and stx-harbouring bacteriophages in a range of feedstuffs destined for consumption by UK livestock. This study provides information on the risk of feeds to the spread of stx-phages between livestock and/or the environment
sincerely, joe cummins

Brian Baker wrote:
Jeff,
In a word, no.

While E. coli is in every cow [and in all of us] the pathogenic strains are limited. The O157:H7 strain is antibiotic resistant and is favored in selection by acidic conditions. Cows that are fed relatively high levels of concentrates and are treated with antibiotics are more likely to become infected with that particular strain than cows on pasture not treated with antibiotics.

Suggest you look at the following report prepared by Chuck Benbrook on the Organic Center's website. http://www.organic-center.org/science.latest.php?action=view&report_id=62 <http://www.organic-center.org/science.latest.php?action=view&report_id=62>

Brian Baker, Research Director, OMRI

Jeff Schahczenski wrote:
Is E coli 0157 in every cow not matter how it is raised? This seems to be the implication?



sals wrote:
Lawrence u must not have heard of the new think tank idea against natural farming call "get the shit out of natural farming. "}. u have not seen anything yet. I always thought a cow was one perfect creation eating grass and weeds and turning it into milk beef and pure gold manure. I don't use it now because of all the pressure I see the government will put on natural farming . I can see by the talk going around that manure may be out for me. darn I always thought ally farming was a wise way to farm . Talk about sustainable ag. I seen it once and thought the farmer was one of the smartest farmers I knew . Ally farming is where u plant fruit trees leave space for grazing then more trees. let the cows graze in-between the trees , taking time for feed to grow then something else then foodstuff or crop etc. I don't know the rotation or timing but I always thought what a sustainable way to farm. the cows grazes and poops and walks around then the cows are moved to another ally where feed grasses etc are grown . old ally rest or something then after right time crop planted then plant what cows eat then let the cows back in again. the whole idea seem sustainable to me. guess this kills that idea. I don't use manure or compost tea anymore because the government USDA organic certifier etc give u so much manure for using it . If u are doing compost tea I would not use manure in it and compost with no manure but if u are certified u have to know what's in it . in my mind comport tea and manure and even compost are the best tools we have but government persecution is too much to bear. I don't know how they are going to put life back into their burned out dead soil with out those tools. I can see feed lot manure being bad but what u had delivered and what your going to do with it sounds right to me. Ori inal Message ----- From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl@INTREX.NET>
To: <SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: no smoking cow?


jcummins wrote:
There seems to be a real effort to stop trying to pin the spinach outbreak on organic food. However, it is clear that organic farmers will have to steer clear of cows! >



I just had 8 - 8 cu.yd. dumptruck loads of cow straw manure delivered for storage, weed removal, and future use. This is manure from a large pasture where the owner has put successive round hay bales under trees for his beef cattle to eat year round. The cows eat nothing but grass, weeds and hay, never any grain and deposit large quantities of manure on the hay from the round bales that gets spread over the ground in the area. As far as offsite N/biomass-compost sources is concerned, this is as good as it gets, lots of clean N, biologically active, already mixed with biomass for carbon, a single source of nitrogen and humus, good stimulus for years of food and cover crop production and soil improvement. I assume there will be no E coli 0157 in this manure unless it comes from some source other than his cows.

********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or; 2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.



********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or; 2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.

********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or; 2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.




********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.



********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.

********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.